You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Middle East - Balanced discussion
- Thread starter freealways
- Start date
Optional, you stated WHAT would bring about a change but you didn't quite answer my question by telling us HOW to bring it about.
Candletrader did in fact offer a solution as to HOW : There will only be peace with the Arabs once they have jailed their terrorists... failing that, once we have exterminated their terrorists...
Is this however really a feasible solution ? It only needs a few of the extremists who aren't caught for things to continue.
Are there any other solutions ?
The way I see things, a change can only be brought about by a change in thinking of the participants.
If each of them continuous to remain stuck in the way they perceived things sofar (similar to, for example, the paranoya displayed by Russia and the USA about each other in the recent past) they will not be able to see things as clearly as an outsider can.
They wouldn't see for example that both sides can obtain most of what it is that they want and receive enormous economic benefits from a solution to the dispute where both sides aren't unhappy about the concessions they needed to give.
But that again is only dealing with the WHAT rather than the HOW.
So what is the solution ?
freealways
Candletrader did in fact offer a solution as to HOW : There will only be peace with the Arabs once they have jailed their terrorists... failing that, once we have exterminated their terrorists...
Is this however really a feasible solution ? It only needs a few of the extremists who aren't caught for things to continue.
Are there any other solutions ?
The way I see things, a change can only be brought about by a change in thinking of the participants.
If each of them continuous to remain stuck in the way they perceived things sofar (similar to, for example, the paranoya displayed by Russia and the USA about each other in the recent past) they will not be able to see things as clearly as an outsider can.
They wouldn't see for example that both sides can obtain most of what it is that they want and receive enormous economic benefits from a solution to the dispute where both sides aren't unhappy about the concessions they needed to give.
But that again is only dealing with the WHAT rather than the HOW.
So what is the solution ?
freealways
will come about as a result of one of the following scenarios:
Complete destruction of one side, OR compromise between the two.
The Palestinian leadership has shown in the past that it is not willing to compromise. They were given IMHO a great opportunity a few years ago at Camp David and Arafat turned it down. Not only that, he apparently was saying encouraging things in English but spewing the old vitriolic hatred in Arabic. It would appear that for Arafat, at least, the only acceptable borders of a Palestinian nation are that of the state of Israel's current borders.
One can only hope that once Arafat is gone he will be replaced by a Palestinian who genuinely wishes to pursue peace and is willing to compromise.
Complete destruction of one side, OR compromise between the two.
The Palestinian leadership has shown in the past that it is not willing to compromise. They were given IMHO a great opportunity a few years ago at Camp David and Arafat turned it down. Not only that, he apparently was saying encouraging things in English but spewing the old vitriolic hatred in Arabic. It would appear that for Arafat, at least, the only acceptable borders of a Palestinian nation are that of the state of Israel's current borders.
One can only hope that once Arafat is gone he will be replaced by a Palestinian who genuinely wishes to pursue peace and is willing to compromise.
The bomb explosion in Saudi Arabia last night brings once again home the message, the truth, that one just cannot reason with
terrorists.
Yet, despite the poll results I remain convinced that the majority of people want to live in peace.
The question is 'Does the West need to go on a search and destroy mission' or 'Are there leaders strong enough to bring things under control' ?
Personally I am starting to lean more and more to the view point that hell will freeze over before an agreement is reached which will stand.
I hope I am wrong.
Sofar I can see that the contributors to this thread consider that the Palestinians are mainly to blame for the continuation of the dispute.
Is this however true ? Is Israel to carry blame for inflaming the
dispute ?
freealways
terrorists.
Yet, despite the poll results I remain convinced that the majority of people want to live in peace.
The question is 'Does the West need to go on a search and destroy mission' or 'Are there leaders strong enough to bring things under control' ?
Personally I am starting to lean more and more to the view point that hell will freeze over before an agreement is reached which will stand.
I hope I am wrong.
Sofar I can see that the contributors to this thread consider that the Palestinians are mainly to blame for the continuation of the dispute.
Is this however true ? Is Israel to carry blame for inflaming the
dispute ?
freealways
Quote from freealways:
Is this however true ? Is Israel to carry blame for inflaming the
dispute ?
Well, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the "dispute" was originally started by Jews. I mean, it wasn't the Arabs crossing oceans to displace the inhabitants of Palestine.
I think we need to keep that in perspective. Sure, for people like us that don't live in the region it's very easy to say "put the past behind you", but I imagine that for people actually living there, many of whom were there when it happened, it's not so easy.
To them, the war continues.
So, taking the easy way out and simply labelling them "terrorists" isn't any kind of an answer. There has to be some other basis on which you would convince the militant Palestinians to call a truce and opt for peace; which can be difficult, no doubt, as you need to be very careful, I think, not to frame it as "accepting defeat".
What I am getting sick and tired of hearing is Israel's "right" to exist? Seriously now, on what basis is this a right? Does it mean that any people that conquer another automatically receive a "right" to exist? Sure, throughout history, peoples and nations that have conquered others have, indeed, continued to exist, but I have a problem with considering it some kind of inalienable "right". To be sure, it does very little indeed to endear their cause to the Palestinians.
I'm not suggesting that the state of Israel should fold or that the Jews leave Palestine; that's obviously completely unrealistic. But I really do think that there needs to be genuine compassion and understanding on the part of Israeli people, especially Israeli powers that be. And from that angle, the Sharon government is failing miserably.
All in all, I think Time is going to be the biggest factor. It simply takes time for the wounds to heal. Time for the memories of displacement to be forgotten. Time to accept that living side by side, in peace with their neighbors is the only way forward. There's no "two minute noodles" solution, unfortunately.
>>Well, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the "dispute" was originally started by Jews. I mean, it wasn't the Arabs crossing oceans to displace the inhabitants of Palestine.<<
I have heard it said that at the time of Jesus Christ there were many Jews living in the area and there wasn't a mosque in sight
as Mohammed didn't come onto the scene until some 700 years later. I think we as reasonable people do accept that as a fact as it has been documented in history.
So where is this idea coming from that the Jews invaded the Middle East ?
When I brought up the question of whether Israel has to accept part of the responsibility for the (continuation of the) conflict I hardly would expect someone bringing facts into the conversation which aren't correct.
freealways
I have heard it said that at the time of Jesus Christ there were many Jews living in the area and there wasn't a mosque in sight
as Mohammed didn't come onto the scene until some 700 years later. I think we as reasonable people do accept that as a fact as it has been documented in history.
So where is this idea coming from that the Jews invaded the Middle East ?
When I brought up the question of whether Israel has to accept part of the responsibility for the (continuation of the) conflict I hardly would expect someone bringing facts into the conversation which aren't correct.
freealways
Quote from freealways:
>>Well, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the "dispute" was originally started by Jews. I mean, it wasn't the Arabs crossing oceans to displace the inhabitants of Palestine.<<
I have heard it said that at the time of Jesus Christ there were many Jews living in the area and there wasn't a mosque in sight
as Mohammed didn't come onto the scene until some 700 years later. I think we as reasonable people do accept that as a fact as it has been documented in history.
So where is this idea coming from that the Jews invaded the Middle East ?
When I brought up the question of whether Israel has to accept part of the responsibility for the (continuation of the) conflict I hardly would expect someone bringing facts into the conversation which aren't correct.
freealways
free, I never said there weren't any Jews living in Palestine at all. (Although I may have made it sound that way). Certainly there were some, but nowhere near the numbers that came later, after Zionism moved from a dreamy nationalist attachement to actually being put into practise.
Mohammed died in 632 (I believe), which isn't quite the 700 years you claim, and in any case, it's not like he brought the Arabs with him from somewhere else, so they'd probably lived there a good deal longer. Anway, without doing any research into exactly when the Arabs began to populate Palestine, I think it's fair to simply assume that they'd live there, and been the majority of the population for over 1000 years, certainly? Or you disagree?
Don't you think that living in a region for a thousand years, long, long after the original inhabitants had left (the Jews), gives people the right to call it "our land"? Certainly the Arabs think so.
>>I mean, it wasn't the Arabs crossing oceans to displace the inhabitants of Palestine.<<
My understanding is that when Israel was designated as a country in 1946 (?) (based on the decisions made after the 1940/45 war, which in turn was based on the promises made at the Balfour convention in the 1930's - have I got that correct anyone ?) there were Arabs living in the area amongst the Jews, as had been the situation for centuries.
When the war broke out in 1947 (?) (which turned out to be a mere six day war would you believe) Israel was under attack by armies many times larger than what Israel could muster.
No need to tell you that israel was very much illequiped but ........... they had a great incentive to go out and win.
The reason Israel finished up giving the superior in numbers Arabs a hiding was because the Israelies had more to lose as they were under threat of being driven into the sea. Iin other words a massacre waiting to happen).
Another reason was that many Arabs didn't exactly have the desire, the stomach to put up a fight.
For example Jordan was under some obligation to pay lip service to the Arab cause but they never actually took it more serious than issuing instructions for the army to be near the border, actually (in essence) avoiding getting involved in an entanglement.
As part of that war the Israelis were under sniper fire from several Arab villages in Israel.
I do believe that the Israeli command then decided on a plan to clear those strategically placed villages out of the way.
The way this was achieved was by going to a couple of villages, giving them a hour or so to leave after which they set the properties on fire.
The inhabitants fled as they feared for their lives and on their way to safety they did an excellent promotional job for Israel by sowing panic in the mind of the people in the many as yet unharmed villages.
As a result there was mass panic and the inhabitants fled their villages for the safety elsewhere.
So that is how so many Arabs came to flee Israel.
However, today there ARE still many Arab villages in Israel with the inhabitants having all the privileges of the Jewish inhabitants (things like voting rights and having represenmtations in parliament).
There is ample evidence however that the Palestinians were and still are talking out of both corners of their mouth (a la the Iraqi Information Minsiter I would guess).
They would tell the West one thing whilst from the opposite corner of their mouth they would be telling a completely different story for Arab consumption.
Now, to revert to the subject on hand, how can the brainwashing which has gone on for several generations now, be overcome enough for both sides of the conflict to make peace and live side by side ?
freealways
My understanding is that when Israel was designated as a country in 1946 (?) (based on the decisions made after the 1940/45 war, which in turn was based on the promises made at the Balfour convention in the 1930's - have I got that correct anyone ?) there were Arabs living in the area amongst the Jews, as had been the situation for centuries.
When the war broke out in 1947 (?) (which turned out to be a mere six day war would you believe) Israel was under attack by armies many times larger than what Israel could muster.
No need to tell you that israel was very much illequiped but ........... they had a great incentive to go out and win.
The reason Israel finished up giving the superior in numbers Arabs a hiding was because the Israelies had more to lose as they were under threat of being driven into the sea. Iin other words a massacre waiting to happen).
Another reason was that many Arabs didn't exactly have the desire, the stomach to put up a fight.
For example Jordan was under some obligation to pay lip service to the Arab cause but they never actually took it more serious than issuing instructions for the army to be near the border, actually (in essence) avoiding getting involved in an entanglement.
As part of that war the Israelis were under sniper fire from several Arab villages in Israel.
I do believe that the Israeli command then decided on a plan to clear those strategically placed villages out of the way.
The way this was achieved was by going to a couple of villages, giving them a hour or so to leave after which they set the properties on fire.
The inhabitants fled as they feared for their lives and on their way to safety they did an excellent promotional job for Israel by sowing panic in the mind of the people in the many as yet unharmed villages.
As a result there was mass panic and the inhabitants fled their villages for the safety elsewhere.
So that is how so many Arabs came to flee Israel.
However, today there ARE still many Arab villages in Israel with the inhabitants having all the privileges of the Jewish inhabitants (things like voting rights and having represenmtations in parliament).
There is ample evidence however that the Palestinians were and still are talking out of both corners of their mouth (a la the Iraqi Information Minsiter I would guess).
They would tell the West one thing whilst from the opposite corner of their mouth they would be telling a completely different story for Arab consumption.
Now, to revert to the subject on hand, how can the brainwashing which has gone on for several generations now, be overcome enough for both sides of the conflict to make peace and live side by side ?
freealways
Alfonso, talking about Jewish population you said "Certainly there were some etc'
Around 1946/47 there were around 750,000 Jews and around 900,000 Arabs living in the area. We can hardly describe that number as merely 'some'.
You are of course right when you said that many more arrived later on. [The present population is about 6 million in an area of around 20,000 square kilometers (slightly smaller than New Jersey)].
About 700,000 out of the 900,000 Arabs fled during the six day war from what they expected to be a massacre.
Your statement saying "Don't you think that living in a region for a thousand years, long, long after the original inhabitants had left (the Jews), gives people the right to call it "our land?" is not correct as the numbers I quoted (750,000 Jews in 1946/47) clearly indicate that Jews have lived there for many many centuries and (to use your phraseology) , I would like to ask you "Don't you think they had a right to live there ?"
Anyway, back to the question "How should one tackle the task of
guiding the two populations to live in peace ?"
freealways
Around 1946/47 there were around 750,000 Jews and around 900,000 Arabs living in the area. We can hardly describe that number as merely 'some'.
You are of course right when you said that many more arrived later on. [The present population is about 6 million in an area of around 20,000 square kilometers (slightly smaller than New Jersey)].
About 700,000 out of the 900,000 Arabs fled during the six day war from what they expected to be a massacre.
Your statement saying "Don't you think that living in a region for a thousand years, long, long after the original inhabitants had left (the Jews), gives people the right to call it "our land?" is not correct as the numbers I quoted (750,000 Jews in 1946/47) clearly indicate that Jews have lived there for many many centuries and (to use your phraseology) , I would like to ask you "Don't you think they had a right to live there ?"
Anyway, back to the question "How should one tackle the task of
guiding the two populations to live in peace ?"
freealways